In the preamble the charter states that it recognizes the “inalienable rights of all members of the human family”. This means that not only can theses rights not be taken away but that they are given to all human beings without condition. This means that any claim that a certain member of of species is too young or too mentally disabled to qualify for basic human rights is in direct contravention of the charter.

When you take this in conjunction with Article 3 which says “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person”. It is clear that those who use the UN as a vehicle to push a Pro abortion agenda are being grossly inconsistent. On one hand they are asking us to accept a supposed right to abort on demand while ignoring the clearly defined inalienable right to life of all unborn children.

Finally I would like to address a common objection which is put forward by the pro abortion movement. They often sight Article 1 which says “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.” They argue that this means that only those who are born have the rights set fourth in the charter.

This however is really a misreading. Article one is saying that when children are born they already have these inalienable rights. It is not saying that the unborn do not have these rights nor is it saying that birth is a condition of receiving them.

If we go back to the preamble, we see that it clearly states that the rights of the charter belong to all members of the human family. Unborn children are scientifically undeniably human therefor it would seem strange and illogical to not include them as members of the human family. In numerous places throughout the charter (including Article 1) it also states that the theses rights belong to all human beings. So again since it is an undeniable fact that unborn children are human beings it would be illogical to exclude them.

It would seem that the reason the term born was used is because that when the charter was being written, it was upon birth that the fundamental Human rights began to be abused. Now however rights are under attack right from conception.

So next time someone challenges you about abortion rights, hold your ground and hold true to the UN charter.

James Leach

I was sadly mistaken. The occupy Melbourne movement is not the grassroots movement it advertises but is instead merely a bunch of left wing activists coming together to complain that their causes aren’t going anywhere. The protests are not about wage equality or even fixing a broken financial system, instead they are about gay marriage, Palestine and bringing about a Marxist revolution.

If they really were the 99% than they wouldn’t be talking about any of those things because evidently 99% of people don’t agree with any of those causes. Instead they would simply focus on financial inequality and embrace anyone who wanted to be involved. I get the feeling however if I tried to vote in their peoples forums while wearing a Pro Life T-shirt I would not receive a very friendly reception.

Even on financial matters they represent far less people than they claim. While many may want reform of the world’s financial system they don’t want to overthrow it.  Unlike the 0.001% which are gathered in the city square most of us don’t think corporations are inherently bad and that everyone who works at a bank is a “scumbag”. We recognise that just because some people abuse the system does not mean that the system itself is bad. Even left wing Barrack Obama echoed these sentiments at the unveiling of the Martin Luther King memorial.

The movement claims to be everyday people humbly wanting to change the system but this is far from the truth. The people there are not “everyday” and they are anything but humble. In fact there is an air of leftwing elitism in the air with many present believing that they are the only “moral” people on the planet.

As I spoke to participants I was told more than once that the masses had been brainwashed by the Murdoch press and that’s why they many disagreed with their causes. One elderly gentleman who I spoke too even told me that they represent what the 99% should believe. I have to admit I admired his honesty. The bottom line is that those protesting believe themselves to know better than everyone else as they go from claiming to be the majority to accusing the majority of being mindless conservative zombies.

The other notable thing about the protest is their lack of leadership. They claim that this is their greatest strength but it could be their greatest weakness. Without anyone in charge it is nearly impossible for them to send a clear message. If you ask 10 people why they are there you will likely get ten different answers. One will say to end corporate greed, another will say to restore true democracy, and some will say they are there to fight for marriage equality while others will claim they want a socialist revolution (and a violent one if need be).

The only thing the movement does agree on are vague statements like “greed is bad” and “we need a more democratic system” all of which sound agreeable but in reality mean nothing. They don’t offer any real solutions partially I’m sure because like I said above they probably couldn’t agree but also because if they proposed any concrete Ideas people could actually challenge and debate them. They don’t want to risk people pointing out that their demands could actually making things worse and lose even more people their jobs. They’d much rather make generic statements which are impossible to disagree with rather than actually contribute meaningfully to the debate.

The last thing that struck me about their movement is their claim to be practising true democracy and that they have created a model for everyone else to follow. I want to make a few observations about this assertion. The first is that the reason their “democracy” is doing well is because everyone in the square comes from a similar political philosophy which means that they are likely to agree on most proposals. If you took a random sample of society and used the same system I doubt it would be as cohesive.

The second is that direct democracy works well when you have only around 200 hundred people but when you have 20 million it becomes unclear how a direct system would work. I asked someone at the socialist tent how he would implement direct democracy. His response was that you could have small collectives who select a spokesman to represent them at a larger gathering of spokespeople and that that gathering could make decisions for the masses. It sounded awfully familiar to me but I couldn’t work out where I’d heard of such a system being used before. When you add into the mix that the Wall Street model requires 90% consensus meaning literally nothing would get done their system actually seems rather unappealing.

The Protesters claim to be part of the same movement which over threw Mubarak and Gaddafi but there is a crucial difference between the Occupy movement and the Arab spring. The former is fighting against our system of government while the latter is fighting for it. Those in Africa want a free society and this includes a free market.  It should give the protesters pause for thought that  if other are willing to die for what we have then maybe they should think twice about wanting to throw it away.

James Leach

The opinion piece relies heavily of  hearsay and personal experience, which is generally frowned upon  in persuasive writing because it cant be properly engaged with. I find it strange that The Age simply expects us to take her word at face value when the same account couldn’t be used as evidence in a year nine persuasive writing task.

In response to her claims of harassment I would simply invite anyone interested to go down to the clinic themselves and see what is really going on. What I think what you’ll find is a bunch of peaceful committed citizens praying and offering help and support to those who need it. I doubt you’ll see any chasing or harassment but as I said, don’t take my word for it go down and see for yourselves.

Like I said above it’s impossible to engage with the personal examples Cannold provided but I will say that its worth remembering that she, through no fault of her own is not an unbiased source so the way she interpreted events could be different to how a neutral onlooker may have interpreted them.

What IS striking about her examples is that, try as she might to make the protesters out to be monsters she has a hard time doing it because their words are nothing to be ashamed of. I mean how dare someone ask “can we help you”?

The reality is the Helpers have a right to talk to people entering the clinic and offer literature. Just because people like Cannold might not like their message does not mean it shouldn’t be heard. If any of the protesters break the law than they should face the consequences but the reality is they haven’t done anything wrong and hence to take action against them would truly be a curtailment of our right to freedom of speech.

And the same goes for the ‘Occupy’ protesters. Even though I may not like their message, I still believe they have a right to protest. As long as they don’t break the law, they can yell and scream and form drum circles all day long. Of course camping in the CBD is against the law so their removal was perfectly justified but if they refrain from doing that then to try and stop them would also be a curtailment of our right to freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech is important. We must have the right to speak out when we believe something is wrong and we must have the right to do it in areas where we believe it will have the most effect. Sometimes lines will be crossed and when that happens the perpetrators should be reprimanded but entire movemnts shouldn’t be punished for the rouge actions of a few individuals.

Voltair put it best when he said “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”. I wonder if Cannold would be prepared to say something similar about the Helpers of Gods Precious infants.

James Leach

While people criticizing Tony Abbott for not being what they think a politician should be is nothing new, what was striking about both the above criticisms is that they both singled out Abbotts Catholicism as being a major drawback to his leadership potential. They are afraid, not only his Catholic views, but also the fact that he has become so popular while holding them.

Costello clearly isn’t comfortable with Abbott’s conservative views. Being from the libertarian faction of the Liberal party he is repulsed by any talk of protectionism and of restricting the free market in any way. He attacks Abbott for adopting Catholic collectivist views as if those views are intrinsically bad for the country. He never explains why these views are so dangerous but just takes it for granted that his readers will accept that they are.

It is important for us as Catholics and Christians to not allow the likes of Costello to get away with such blatant attacks. We must stand up for Catholic social teaching as a solid foundation for forming views not only on social issues but on economics as well. The former treasurer wrote that Catholic thinking was best left to theologians but that’s not an option for a committed Catholic or Christian.

The Catholic economic tradition espoused by Mannix and Santamaria was one both committed to the freedom provided by a free market while still respecting the dignity of the individual worker. At its heart is the belief that a nations economy should work for the people and not the people for the economy. We cannot allow these values to be dismissed as irrelevant like Costello wants them to be.

How true Costello’s claims are is irrelevant. I think how much Tony Abbott does conform to Catholic social teaching is a matter for debate. What is important here is that when a Leader like Abbott is attacked for being too “Catholic” we must leap to not only his defence but also the defence of those Catholic views.

The second attack came from a left wing academic who claims that Abbott is a generation behind the rest of us. She asserts that anyone who rejects gay marriage and a women’s right to choose abortion is not fit to lead a progressive nation such as Australia.  What is evident throughout her article is that she is scared of Roman Catholicism. She is scared of what a Catholic Prime minister might do to the country if given the chance. Her article is essentially fear mongering which is ironic considering that’s what the left loves accusing the right of doing.

Her fear mongering won’t work because she has grossly misread the Australian Population. Abbott is not popular because people don’t know what his policies are, Abbott is popular because Australia is still very conservative and many Australian actually agree with Abbott on abortion and Marriage rights. It is not Abbott who is behind but Mitchell who is deluded. Unlike her, most Australians are not scared of a Catholic leader but are happy to embrace his Traditional values.

Id even goes as far as to argue that it’s the very fact that we are not meant to like Abbott that we do. We hate being told who we should and should not vote for and who will be popular in our minds. We don’t like being dictated to by an elitist academic class. According to them we should embrace “middle class Julia” or short of that we should prefer moderate Turnbull to the extreme of Abbott and yet the polls show that we simply don’t. Abbott is more popular than anyone who we are supposed to like. And that shows us as I said before that many supposed “political pundits” have misread the Australian people and are only now realising that University campus attitudes aren’t reflective of broader Australian society.

If anything both of these attacks have worked in Abbotts favour. They have positioned him as a centre candidate who is under attack from both extremes. Whether or not you agree with his views it’s vital that we don’t let people attack candidates for being “too Christian”. Party loyalties aside we must defend openly Christian leaders when they come under attack and we must defend our right to have a voice.